Month: May 2025

When I was growing up, I was often referred to as a nerd or bookworm, but the title I treasured above all else was perhaps the unlikeliest: clothes horse.

Under the influence of my father—who was born, raised, and educated in Ohio, but came of age when Ivy League-style dress was nearly all-pervasive—I gained an early appreciation for dressing well. The fundamentals, as taught to me by my dad, included 3-button sack sport coats, Shetland sweaters, and slacks with neither pleats nor a break.

I could recite my secondhand sartorial preferences with such precocious authority that I managed to impress, or at least leave an impression upon, the tailor at a Jos. A. Bank store in downtown New Orleans, where my father ran a company and where I spent much of my youth. On one Saturday afternoon when my father was buying a suit—and I was undoubtedly reeling off the dos and don’ts of menswear—the tailor told me: “You’re a clothes horse like your father.”

I had never heard the term before, but I carried it with me throughout my adolescence and young adulthood. Apparently wanting to live up to the title, I never went through anything that resembled a period of slovenly dress. Now, in my very early 40s, I take it as a point of pride to dress as well as I can.

Yet being a clothes horse ain’t as easy as it used to be.

Last month, I ordered a seersucker sport coat from Brooks Brothers, whose remaining non-outlet location in the bustling metropolis of Greater Columbus closed over a year ago. (Devoted readers of this column will recall an earlier installment bemoaning that sad occasion.) Thus, my purchase was made over the internet, but, having experienced the highs and the lows of Brooks Brothers over the last four decades, I felt confident that I knew what I was getting. By my lights, it was a low-risk purchase, but the story that follows makes a mockery of my confidence.

When the sport coat arrived, I was delighted with the sack cut and even more delighted with the fit, which did not appear to require any significant alterations—not even to the length of the sleeves. Alas, I was too delighted. In my enthusiasm for my purchase, I neglected to note a near-fatal flaw in this particular garment’s construction: two buttons are meant to adorn both coat sleeves, but on the coat I received, one of the sleeves was missing buttons—any buttons.

Was this a newfangled style innovation from Brooks Brothers? If so, count me out.

The reality was far more pedestrian: After I phoned the nearest Brooks Brothers—in Pittsburgh, of all places—I learned that each sleeve did indeed call for two buttons. What I had on my hands was some sort of factory flub. Naturally, the “extra” buttons that are slipped into the inside pocket of every Brooks Brothers sport coat or blazer only contained a single—as in one—sleeve button. In all of my years of purchasing clothes from Brooks Brothers, I have bought my share of questionable ties and socks that too easily grew threadbare, but I had never encountered a snafu at once so simple and detrimental.  

I could have returned and reordered the coat, but I decided I might be better off improvising a solution: On the advice of the gentleman I spoke to in Pittsburgh, I decided to call Brooks Brothers stores on the East Coast in search of a pair of spare buttons. I was prepared to spend the afternoon working my way up and down the Eastern Seaboard, but to my happy astonishment, I soon found myself chatting with the helpful manager of a store who understood my predicament. Upon identifying the exact style of my sport coat, and consulting with the on-site tailor, she was able to produce the needed buttons—which arrived, via UPS, the following week. 

What is the moral of this story? To start with, a customer with a genuine dilemma—such as a button-less sleeve on an otherwise perfect piece of apparel—can still find good customer service, even if it requires long-distance calling. Most people want to help. But I think the overriding lesson is that clothes horses like me can no longer take their habit for granted. To be well-dressed in a world that does not prioritize being even presentably-dressed requires an ever-increasing amount of effort. 

To that end, I am no longer in possession of those sought-after buttons. They, along with the seersucker sport coat on which they belong, are now with a local tailor who is tasked with sewing them on. All those years ago when my father taught me to appreciate the fundamentals of Ivy-style attire, he had no idea just how difficult it would be.

The post The Travails of a Modern Clothes-Horse appeared first on The American Conservative.

On Tuesday, May 20, Ximena Guzmán parked her car at the same spot in Mexico City she did every other day, waiting to pick up her coworker José Muñoz. As usual, they were to drive to the capital, where they would begin their workday in the office of Mexico City’s mayor, Clara Brugada. Tragically, no such thing would occur that day, or any day thereafter. As Muñoz walked out and got inside the waiting car, a man waiting close by on the busy street pulled out a handgun and fired 12 shots at close range into the car, killing both occupants. The murderer, his job done, fled through the streets and successfully escaped the city with the help of at least three accomplices.

The brutal double murder has left Mexico City in a state of shock. The capital, the most populous city in the country and the seat of the Mexican federal government, has come to be seen as a safe haven from the crime and disorder of the cartel-controlled countryside. The killing, which bears the hallmarks of a professional assassination of the type frequently employed by organized criminal enterprises elsewhere in Mexico, has upended that sense of normality—doubly so as the government has struggled to find any significant information on the culprits and the motives behind the killings.

Both victims were important members of Brugada’s personal team, Guzmán working as the mayor’s secretary and Muñoz as her political advisor, but neither had a significant public presence. Working in an essentially private capacity, there was little reason anyone would have picked up a grudge against them. Instead, the murders seem aimed at the mayor herself, although their intentions and identity remain a mystery.

Whatever the purpose behind the attack, its execution was consummately well-planned. The conspirators staked out Guzmán and Muñoz for at least a week beforehand, familiarizing themselves with their schedule and route to work. When the killer fled, he ran into the area of the city with the fewest security cameras, where he picked up an electric scooter. He met up with three of his accomplices in a vehicle, which they ditched after driving for some distance for another, different vehicle they had placed in preparation for the escape.

The evidence left behind for the government to investigate is minimal. The handgun and bullets are unremarkable, the security cameras don’t provide sufficient detail to identify the suspects, and the cars were stolen and their plates changed to make identification difficult. All the conspirators wore gloves and left no fingerprints. The principal hope for investigators was finding DNA evidence in the vehicles and changes of clothing left behind, but that hope seems to have been extinguished under suspicious circumstances: Two police commanders in charge of evidence have been suspended, and the Secretariat for State Security has opened an internal investigation into the matter, although prosecutors deny that evidence has been tampered with or adulterated. The possibility of various conspiracies involving cartels or other bodies of organized crime—never a stretch of the imagination in Mexico—have thrown the public into a frenzy of speculation.

The entire episode has heaped more fuel on the fire of discontent with the security situation in Mexico. The country is currently suffering from a wave of violent crime that began in 2015 but continued under the previous president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. López Obrador promoted a “hugs, not bullets” strategy for dealing with crime that attempted to deal with the issue by reducing youth unemployment and increasing welfare provisions for vulnerable populations. The approach was not very successful in achieving reductions in crime: Murders dropped slightly during López Obrador’s presidency, but the number of missing persons increased dramatically—over 10,000 people were reported missing in 2024.

The current Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s tenure has been plagued by high-profile cartel murders, such as the grisly assassination of the newly inaugurated mayor of Chilpancingo, whose head was left sitting on top of his car as a warning to those who seek to combat cartel crime. The murder of politicians is not uncommon in Mexico, but to have it happen in the capital, the seat of federal power, is unusual and strikes a harsh blow against the Mexican government’s prestige.

Sheinbaum has made security one of the themes of her presidency. She has quietly dropped the “hugs, not bullets” rhetoric of her predecessor, and instead emphasized a strategy based on strengthening the Mexican intelligence services and the investigative capabilities of the government’s crime-fighting forces, which is an important step in the right direction. But that didn’t stop her from implementing sharp cuts in the 2025 federal budget for security services, stripping 36 percent of the funds for security and civil protection to fund her promised project of building a million additional houses in the country by 2030.

That was a bet that the Mexican security services could be significantly streamlined and, with a new strategic approach to crime-fighting, obtain better results for less money. The results so far have shown some promise: April 2025 was the month with the lowest murder rate since 2016. But the continued wave of missing persons and ever-more public political assassinations demonstrate that Mexico still has a long way to go.

The post Murders of Mexico City Officials Haunt Government appeared first on The American Conservative.

Recently, and almost entirely unnoticed by the mainstream media, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) reopened a door that has been bolted shut since 1930. For the first time in nearly a century, U.S. producers were being asked simple, America First questions: What can we make more of here, in our own country? Which products need tariff protection?

Under an interim final rule that took effect April 30, manufacturers who use steel and aluminum to make things in America now have three, two-week windows every year—in May, September, and January—to request that products they make be added to the coverage of the existing steel and aluminum tariff actions.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is calling this the “Inclusion” process, and with it he is reviving straightforward and patriotic tariff dialogue for the first time in 95 years.

The Founders’ Intent: Open Dialogue, Not Litigation

This new inclusion process is not merely a bureaucratic tweak. It signals a conscious return to the system the Founders created under the Tariff Act of 1789, the first major bill passed by Congress. The first sentence of that Act read: 

Whereas it is necessary for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufacturers, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise imported…

From that Tariff Act of 1789 to the last such act, the Tariff Act of 1930, the process was the same: producers testified about the competitive landscape of their industry, lawmakers weighed national interests against potential consumer costs, and rates were set product by product with “catch-all” rates for products not listed.

That practical give-and-take, with an unabashed bias to protecting and preserving the home market for domestic producers, was the key tenant of what Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln later called “the American system,” which nurtured economic growth and turned the U.S. into an industrial powerhouse that was the envy of the world by 1900.

Under this American system, it was considered good and patriotic to protect U.S. producers. Politicians didn’t use language like “level the playing field” or talk about how “American workers can compete with anyone.” No, putting American workers in direct competition with lower-paid overseas workers was considered self-evidently ridiculous. William McKinley put it simply: “Open competition between high-paid American labor and poorly paid European labor will either drive out of existence American industry or lower American wages.”

Progressives in the early 20th century, however, began to take aim at protective tariffs as part of their animus towards the giant monopolies and trusts of the era.

President Woodrow Wilson, addressing a joint session of Congress in April 1913, argued that American businesses—and workers—should, actually, be in direct price competition with everyone, everywhere on Earth:

Aside from the duties laid upon articles which we do not, and probably cannot, produce, therefore, and the duties laid upon luxuries and merely for the sake of the revenues they yield, the object of the tariff duties henceforth laid must be effective competition, the whetting of American wits by contest with the wits of the rest of the world.

Wilson wasn’t persuaded by arguments, for example, from the Rice Association of America, that laborers on rice fields in America were paid $1.50 per day, while in British India and Burma “there is no wage paid.” The Rice Association pleaded:

to ask the American agriculturist, and from him on through the different variations of labor who handle rice, to ask them to put their industry on a basis where they will have to compete with the rice of the Asiatic countries is to invite and bring about annihilation of the industry.

Unfortunately, various political interests combined to eliminate protections, and Wilson’s view about unlimited price competition for businesses and laborers would become the law of the land once Democrats swept into power in 1932.

In 1934, Congress outsourced most tariff decisions to the State Department, and later, in 1947, to Geneva, placing American law under the shackles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Under GATT rules, domestic producers hoping for tariff relief were left to contort themselves into very tight trade-law pigeonholes—antidumping, countervailing-duty, and safeguards—that required expensive lawyers and years of litigation while only offering temporary, ineffective relief.

Labor unions never had a chance. Pointing out that workers overseas couldn’t organize and were paid a fraction of American wages got you nowhere in the new, Geneva-headquartered “multilateral trade system.”

Lutnick’s Inclusion Rounds, however, have now delivered a mortal wound to Geneva’s machinations.

With the new system, a U.S. manufacturer, instead of needing to prove that a foreign rival sells “below cost,” or being forced to conjure up precise metrics by which a foreign subsidy offsets a “fair” price, can make a case for protection entirely familiar to producers from before 1934: one centered on human and industrial development, wages and employment, and national self-reliance here at home.

Contrast that with antidumping cases, which typically cost a minimum of $1 million to initiate and $5 million to arrive at an uncertain ruling, with reams of contradictory “evidence” thrust before a panel. The Trump administration’s new Inclusion process will be a boon to small businesses that could never afford expensive, uncertain litigation.

Even more important, the process restores dialogue between the U.S. government and American businesses. The Founders expected tariff rates to be set by elected officials and thus open to the input of the American people. And while the Constitution gives the ultimate power to set tariffs to Congress, the legislative branch relied on the executive to help set rates.

By inviting petitions thrice yearly, BIS re-institutionalizes this forgotten American tradition.

The One-Size-Fits-All Problem

None of this is to say the new version of this process is perfect. The interim rule dictates that every successful petition inherits the same duty imposed on raw steel and aluminum. This rate had been 25 percent, but that proved too low to provide protection to domestic steel and aluminum mills, so on Friday, President Donald Trump announced that the steel and aluminum tariffs would double to 50 percent.

This increase is a welcome development. But we can continue to improve. One key problem: For goods further downstream from core steel and aluminum products, the 50 percent levy applies only to the steel and aluminum content in the imported product.

How is that content supposed to be calculated? Well, that’s on the official FAQ. The answer: “The value of the steel/aluminum content should be determined in accordance with the principles of the [World Trade Organization’s] Customs Valuation Agreement…”

In practice, that effectively means the importer is supposed to ask its overseas vendor what they recall paying for the steel and aluminum. The 50 percent applies to that alleged price.

It’s an invitation to fraud, and should be discarded as soon as possible..

Bring Back ‘Specific’ and ‘Compound’ Tariffs

Ad valorem tariffs are those expressed as a percentage—and are assessed against a price the importer claims they paid abroad. The proof? An overseas invoice. A PDF.

As far back as 1842, the father of the American trade system, Henry Clay himself, warned against using ad valorem tariffs even for revenue, to say nothing of their lack of any protective effect:

It is evident that on the ad valorem principle, it is the foreigner who virtually fixes the actual amount of the duty paid. It is the foreigner who, by fixing that value, virtually legislates for us—and that in a case where his interest is directly opposed to that of our revenue. I say, therefore, that independently of all considerations of protection, independently of all ends or motives but the prevention of those infamous frauds which have been the disgrace of our customhouse—frauds in which the foreigner, with his double and triple and quadruple invoices, ready to be produced as circumstances may require, fixes the value of the merchandise taxed—every consideration of national dignity, justice, and independence, demands the substitution of home valuation in the place of foreign.

The Commerce Department is listening to Clay’s wisdom. The Inclusion Process continues to be refined, and Lutnick has encouraged public comments. For the next Inclusion Round, BIS should ask domestic producers for tariff rates that will ensure their domestic productive capacity is utilized. Doing so is good, patriotic, and compatible with the American tradition. Protect the home market.

Now, for high-value, capital-intensive goods, produced by a limited number of global equipment makers—like heavy trucks—an ad valorem tariff may well be sufficient.

But for most products, especially in industries filled with fly-by-night overseas vendors and imports, an ad valorem tariff assessed on whatever PDF the importer uploads will not limit imports and thus fail to advance BIS’ goal in the underlying tariff action. A 50 percent ad valorem tariff is much better, but as we saw with so many Chinese imports breezing through 125 percent, invoice fraud is child’s play. This is why Clay said that even for revenue purposes, ad valorem tariffs were beneath America’s dignity.

And while fixing the “only applies to content” defect is critical, Commerce should avoid assuming a 50 percent ad valorem will be sufficient for all steel and aluminum products, even if applied to the whole alleged value. America’s original tariff statutes were anything but flat. The Tariff Act of 1789 listed specific tariff rates on dozens and dozens of products: cheese, 4 cents per pound; boots, fifty cents per pair; coffee, two and a half cents per pound. Ad valorem tariffs were deployed for products not individually listed.

“Specific tariffs” are those that are assessed on a unit of volume, like the 1789 Act’s rates for cheese, boots, and coffee above. With specific tariffs, customs fraud is difficult, because the customs officer need only count or weigh the merchandise in front of him to assess the tariff.

We still have plenty of specific tariffs in use today, mostly on agricultural products, although because neither Congress nor any president has updated them for inflation since 1930, they’re all anachronistic.

“Compound tariffs” are those that combine both a specific-tariff element as well as an ad valorem. Flatware (cutlery) has had a compound tariff that has not been adjusted for inflation since 1930. In the current Inclusion Round, the last American producer of stainless-steel flatware—Sherrill Manufacturing—has petitioned to be added to steel’s tariff action. Sherill states that a compound tariff of 50 cents per-piece plus 25 percent is necessary for the steel tariff program’s goals.

What Comes Next

Because the inclusion mechanism sits within Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, future rounds can expand beyond steel and aluminum. The administration has already initiated Section 232 tariff actions for wood products, copper alloys, critical minerals, semiconductors, and drugs, which are all expected to have a similar Inclusion process. Each sector will now have a predictable forum, several times a year, to argue its case—without hiring a stable of trade lawyers schooled in Geneva.

The Trump administration, and Commerce’s BIS in particular, should be celebrated for this development so early in the term. It’s no small feat. For decades, Washington has dithered between neglect and panic—ignoring industrial decline until the last domestic producer left to complain is gone.

This September, when the next Inclusion Round begins, BIS should solicit comments and requests for specific tariff rates for particular products sufficient to fill domestic producers’ order books. President Trump can act on those recommendations via presidential proclamations. If he does, the Trump administration will have fully restored a vital American tradition that will cement the dawn of America’s golden age.

The post Trump Is Reviving a Great American Tariff Tradition appeared first on The American Conservative.

You don’t hate the media enough.

ABC News is reporting that Republicans are planning to investigate Biden’s mental decline, but they frame it on Twitter/X and in the actual report as “what they call Biden’s decline.”

Jake Tapper and other liberal journalists are writing books about Biden’s mental decline and doing massive media tours to promote these books, but when Republicans decide to investigate, suddenly it’s framed as a partisan accusation.

Also, when did investigations become a bad thing? Democrats and the media sure seemed to love them when they focused on Trump.

Take a look at this:

Senate Republicans have announced plans to launch their own probe into former President Biden over his cognitive abilities while in office, claiming they want to investigate who was running the country during what they call Biden’s decline. https://t.co/4omKUnM1q3

— ABC News (@ABC) May 30, 2025

From the report (emphasis is ours):

GOP senators plan hearing on Biden’s perceived cognitive decline

Senate Republicans have announced plans to launch their own probe into former President Joe Biden over his cognitive abilities while in office, claiming they want to investigate who was running the country during what they call Biden’s decline.

Republican Sens. Eric Schmitt and John Cornyn will co-chair a first-of-its-kind Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next month on the subject, which they say was covered up by members of the media. The focus echoes President Donald Trump’s oft-repeated claims about Biden’s mental fitness while president and criticism of Biden’s use of autopen, a mechanical device to automatically add a signature to a document that’s been utilized by several past presidents, including Trump in his first term.

“We need to get past the failures of the media, which were legend as you pointed out, or the political issue of ‘were you for Biden or against Biden?’ This is about a constitutional crisis, where we basically have a mentally incompetent president who’s not in charge,” Cornyn said Thursday on Fox News’ “The Will Cain Show.”

“What they call Biden’s decline…”

Well, @abcnews, what do you call it? https://t.co/WzaT72ekE8

— LincolnHillsFrau (@bayareahausfrau) May 30, 2025

The media never fails to amaze. Their bias is so built in to their world view that they can’t even see it.

The post ABC News Reports That Republicans Are Planning to Investigate ‘What They Call Biden’s Decline’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Paris is burning. Riots broke out during a soccer match and continued into the night. video image Tousi TV

PARIS IS BURNING.

There was mass rioting Saturday night in Paris, particularly around the Champs-Élysées, following Paris Saint-Germain’s (PSG) victory. X Posts claim that clashes erupted between football fans, groups described as North African gangs, and police, with fireworks, paving stones, and tear gas involved.

The streets are littered with burning cars, barricades, and injuries, with some posts framing it as widespread chaos or “anarchy.”

There was widespread rioting in Paris tonight. Tousi TV covered the mayhem.

There is a shocking video of migrants and rioters on the freeway firing off fireworks at police, although the details remain unclear.

Tousi TV from Britain covered the riots tonight.

The crazy scenes in Paris are continuing into the night. Riot police are being blasted with fireworks and are using tier gas against the violent crowds. pic.twitter.com/VeiWy06hBs

— Liam A Diss (@BritFirst) June 1, 2025

More rioting near the highway.

TOTAL chaos on Paris highways — cops clash with football fans

Riot police seen dragging man across asphalt

Officers fire tear gas pic.twitter.com/lejzrpIMRB

— RT (@RT_com) May 31, 2025

Generation Identity, a pro-French group posted this video.

Paris is already on fire, riot police deployed pic.twitter.com/Wu56sDAkrz

— Generation Identity (@IdentitarianSI) May 31, 2025

The post PARIS IS BURNING: Mass Chaos as Migrants Riot in the Streets Following Football Match appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

During Bill Maher’s show on Friday night, there was a weird moment when the lights in the studio went out just as Maher was bringing up Joe Biden’s mental decline.

Bill and his audience had an ‘ooooooh’ moment over it.

It did seem a bit of a weird coincidence, given the timing and the subject.

Transcript via Mediaite:

BILL MAHER: Here they are. He is the anchor of CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper and co-author of the best-selling book, Original Sin, President Biden’s Decline, His Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, Jake Taper. All right.

And he is a Marine Corps veteran and a Democratic congressman representing Massachusetts Sixth District, Seth Moulton. Back with us. Good to see you. All right, uh,.

Time out for one small plug. My book is out in paperback. June 3rd, also audio book. It was awesome a year ago. It hasn’t gotten any worse. It’s great. OK, but –.

Let’s talk about the book everyone’s really talking about. And that’s Jake Tapper’s book. I have rarely seen. This doesn’t happen much anymore in American society where everyone is talking about a single book. And that is your book. And you say, Joe Biden was old. What’s your proof?

(LAUGHTER).

No, I feel like your book gave us closure because we were kind of wondering, are we making this up a little too much? It’s so hard to tell when people get to that age. What’s, are they, they’re.

(DARKNESS DESCENDS).

Oh!

(HUSH FALLS).

Watch the video below:

The lights went out in the Bill Maher studio as he talked about the deterioration of Joe Biden while promoting Jake Tapper’s new book:
Bill Maher: “Everyone is talking about a single book, that is your book. You say Joe Biden was old. What is your proof!? Your book gave us… pic.twitter.com/i0OPPiFHDR

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) May 31, 2025

Coincidence or a sign of things to come?

The post BAD OMEN? Lights Go Out in Bill Maher’s Studio When He Brings Up Joe Biden’s Mental Decline (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Harmeet Dhillon (Credit: Gage Skidmore)

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon is launching a civil rights investigation into the University of Virginia’s continuation of racist Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices.

The move comes following calls by the legal campaign group America First Legal (AFL) exposing how the university is refusing to comply with rulings from the administration that DEI is unconstitutional and all related programs should be eliminated.

Rather than remove the programs, the university simply “rebranded” them to alternative job titles. But nobody was fooled.

AFL wrote in a press release last week:

AFL’s letter, including over 48 exhibits, supports DOJ’s April 28, 2025, letter placing UVA on notice for failing to comply with federal civil rights laws, controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and recent Executive Orders issued by President Donald Trump. DOJ demanded that UVA certify, with “precision and particularity,” that every division, school, and program had fully complied with a March 7 resolution adopted by UVA’s Board of Visitors. That resolution required UVA to dismantle all DEI-related policies, programs, and preferences that discriminate based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, or other protected characteristics.

DOJ also directed UVA to provide a detailed accounting of every department, role, preference system, and title that had been eliminated; to disclose all individuals who previously held DEI-related positions and whether they remain employed in any capacity; and to produce records demonstrating the full dismantling of DEI across the institution. UVA was required to respond by May 2, 2025.

On April 29, the University adopted a new resolution titled “Advancing Free Inquiry and Viewpoint Diversity at UVA,” claiming it had “made progress” in dismantling DEI while asserting that “additional work remains to be done” to advance “open inquiry” and to cultivate “citizen leaders.”

Rather than certifying compliance with DOJ’s directives, UVA announced the creation of a working group — not to bring the University into compliance with federal law — but to “promote open inquiry, constructive conversation across differences, and development of a civic mindset.” The resolution failed to identify which parts of its $1 billion DEI initiative had been rescinded and provided no evidence that any discriminatory programs had been dismantled.

/1UVA’s Board of Visitors voted to dismantle its DEI infrastructure.

Instead, UVA just rebranded.

When it failed to comply, DOJ demanded proof.

So AFL investigated — and found the truth:

Same people.
Same responsibilities.
Same agenda.
New titles.

We’ve got the receipts. pic.twitter.com/TCSjbM75o9

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) May 29, 2025

Following the demands from AFL, a DOJ spokesperson confirmed to The Federalist they had opened an investigation into the matter:

The Justice Department confirmed its investigation into the school to America First Legal (AFL), The Federalist learned, after the group sent a 98-page letter to Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, a UVA alumna, on Friday detailing how UVA is attempting to disguise its DEI infrastructure in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The university’s Board of Visitors voted to dismantle DEI earlier this year, but actually executing that directive is left to the very people who injected the ideology into the school in the first place, as The Federalist reported.

“UVA has not dismantled its DEI framework — it has merely rebranded it to evade legal scrutiny. What the law prohibits, UVA simply renamed,” AFL counsel Megan Redshaw told The Federalist. “We are grateful the DOJ has taken our findings seriously and is taking action to hold UVA accountable. No institution that receives taxpayer funds is above the law.”

After the UVA board’s vote, the Department of Justice sent an April 28 letter to the school’s president, rector, and legal counsel requiring that the school prove it was dismantling the DEI regime they had built in order to be in compliance with civil rights law.

Since taking office in January, the Trump administration has aggressively moved to dismantle DEI initiatives across the federal government, education, and government contractors.

This has also executive orders that eliminate DEI offices, ban race- and sex-based preferences, and mandate strict adherence to merit-based hiring and program eligibility. 

WATCH: President Trump Says He Ended “Bullish*t” DEI – “There Are Only Two Genders: MALE AND FEMALE”

The post Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon Launches Civil Rights Investigation Into University of Virginia’s DEI Regime appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Former Israeli hostage Omer Shem Tov told CNN that his Hamas captors’ behavior toward him changed for the better after Donald Trump was elected president in November.

And that’s not surprising, given the support Trump has shown Israel in the past, versus the cold shoulder former President Joe Biden, and to a greater extent, Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris gave to the Jewish State.

“[The terrorists] were very scared of [Trump]. They wanted Kamala to be elected,” Shem Tov told CNN’s Bianna Golodryga in an interview aired Wednesday.

“But as soon as Donald Trump was elected, they understood he wants to bring the hostages back home. So immediately, the way they treated me changed,” the 22-year-old added.  “More food, [they] treated me better. Stopped cursing me. Stopped spitting on me.”

“(The terrorists) were very scared of (Trump). They wanted Kamala to be elected. But as soon as Trump was elected, they understood he wants to bring the hostages back home. So immediately the way they treated me changed…My food, they treated me better.”
Omer Shem Tov tells me… pic.twitter.com/phHusemiAc

— Bianna Golodryga (@biannagolodryga) May 28, 2025

Golodryga asked Shem Tov if he thought the change in treatment was because the Hamas captors thought a deal would come soon.

He felt that was the case.

Shem Tov was among the approximately 250 hostages taken on Oct. 7, 2023, and survived 505 days in captivity before being released in February as part of a temporary cease-fire agreement that Trump’s team helped negotiate, Fox News reported.

Shem Tov and seven other hostages who were released met with Trump in the Oval Office in March.

“My family and, I, myself, we believe you’ve been sent by God to release us. You really helped. You have the power to do it,” he told the president.

Naama Levy concurred that Trump made the difference, saying, “You were our hope, when we were there. Now you’re their hope,” referring to those still held captive.

“Once you were elected, we heard that you want to do everything to make a deal as soon as possible,” she added.

Breaking: released hostages met with President Trump and thanked him for managing to get the hostage deal done – and asked him to get the rest of them out as well.

This is what they told him:
Omer Shem Tov: “My family and, I, myself we believe you’ve been sent by god to release… pic.twitter.com/lwx9SYHeTH

— Neria Kraus (@NeriaKraus) March 5, 2025

Trump responded, “Well, we said … ‘You better let them out.’  … Something happened. Now we’ve got to get the rest out. We’re working on it very hard.”

On Wednesday at the White House with Trump by his side, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steven Witkoff announced a framework had been agreed to for a temporary cease-fire reached between Hamas and Israel.

“And I have some very good feelings about getting to a long-term resolution — temporary cease-fire and a long-term resolution, a peaceful resolution — of that conflict,” he said.

U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East @SteveWitkoff on Gaza: “I think that we are on the precipice of sending out a new term sheet that hopefully will be delivered later on today… I have some very good feelings about getting to a long-term resolution — temporary ceasefire.” pic.twitter.com/Cg4wNeNBsh

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 28, 2025

The deal “calls for the release of 10 living hostages and 18 deceased hostages, as well as a 60-day truce,” an Israeli official told CNN.

Trump and his team have displayed vigorous leadership in seeking to bring the war in Gaza to an end.

It’s a stark contrast to the tepid, on-again, off-again support the Biden-Harris regime offered Israel, only emboldening Hamas to keep the hostages and fight on.

No wonder they wanted Kamala to win.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Former Israeli Hostage Reveals His Hamas Captors’ Behavior Changed ‘Immediately’ After Trump Was Elected appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

During an appearance on Bill Maher’s show this weekend, CNN’s Jake Tapper suggested that Biden’s mental decline was responsible for the border crisis of the last four years, claiming that it wasn’t official policy. This is ridiculous.

So much of Tapper’s book and the media tour to promote it is about rewriting history and this is just one more example.

It is obvious that what happened at the border was policy. It was a strategy to flood the country with new Democrat voters in an effort to change the electorate.

Transcript via Eric Abbenante on Twitter/X:

Jake Tapper claims that Joe Biden’s mental deterioration led to the crisis at the border:

Jake Tapper: “You’re complimenting it by calling it a policy. Not to talk about my book again, but one of the things we discovered:

Senator Bennett from Colorado went to an event in 2024 where Biden seemed non functioning. He left the event thinking ‘This is why our border policy, our immigration policy was such a mess.’

Mayorkas, he thought there was going to be an order early on in the Biden years, the order never came.”

Watch the video:

Jake Tapper claims that Joe Biden’s mental deterioration led to the crisis at the border:
Jake Tapper: “You’re complimenting it by calling it a policy.
Not to talk about my book again, but one of the things we discovered:
Senator Bennett from Colorado went to an event in 2024… pic.twitter.com/PFvJRG4imf

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) May 31, 2025

People know this claim is completely bogus.

what a joke… it was all by design to flood the US with as many blue voters as possible https://t.co/MHJF0hXLMp

— magic mike (@MikeRobidoux) May 31, 2025

Dems know the base is so stupid they can push this BS https://t.co/zc1QEKO5Yy

— feritas (@4thSpoliaOpima) May 31, 2025

The true purpose of this book keeps coming into focus. Tapper is trying to insulate the media and Democrats from the disaster of the Biden presidency.

The post Jake Tapper Blames Biden Mental Decline for Border Crisis – Suggests it Wasn’t Official Policy (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Steve Bannon talks with author Spencer Morrison on Tariffs 5/31/25

War Room’s Steve Bannon discussed tariffs and China’s dishonest trade policies with author Spencer Morrison.

“Where we are right now, and where do you think this thing is going?” Bannon asked regarding tariffs.

“So right now the tariffs that negotiation they’re paused, they’re paused for 90 days. The effective tariff rate right now is about 51 percent,” Morrison said.

“The reality is here from my perspective. China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 and in doing so they made a ton of commitments that they would play fair,” Morrison said.

“The point of trade for China has nothing to do fair business. They don’t care about American industry. They don’t care about the American people. They only care about enriching the Communist Party,” Morrison warned.

“China’s entire economic system is geared towards ripping off America,” Morrison said.

“There’s two prongs to it. The first prong is the unfair trade practices which are netting them approximately 400 billion dollars a year or more in the trade deficit, and in the second part of that is the intellectual property theft,” Morrison warned.

“President Trump is the first President to fight back against this in over 50 years,” Morrison continued.

“We have 36 trillion dollars in debt. We have 25 trillion dollars in a trade deficit. 18 trillion dollars directly associated with China and the Chinese Communist Party, but we have an intellectual property deficit I think 25 trillion dollars,” Bannon said.

Bannon also explained that intellectual property theft occurred because not only industrial espionage, but also because of Wall Street and corporations.

“It’s not just simply from industrial espionage. That is because Wall Street and the corporations have basically been kowtowed that if you want to have anything to do with mainland China, you have to put it into a joint venture. Your joint venture partner is the Chinese Communist Party,” Bannon warned.

“All your intellectual property goes in and they just steal it right there and reverse engineer it,” Bannon continued.

“What China has done is they have leapfrogged about two centuries in the last 40 years and this was done through stealing technology,” Morrison said.

Watch:

The post The War Room’s Steve Bannon Discusses Tariffs and China’s Unfair Trade Practices with Author Spencer Morrison (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.